Talk:Balista
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Mksmith in topic The Historia Augusta are fraudulent
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Balista article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Historia Augusta are fraudulent edit
Most of the secondary sources cited here depend on a fraudulent pseudo-primary source. So is there are part of the article that does not rest, ultimately, on the Historia Augusta? If the whole thing rests on the Historia Augusta, then the article is pseudohistory. 71.191.228.6 (talk) 03:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- The article on Historia Augusta states it is widely controversial, but not a complete fraud. I have reworded the article accordingly and changed the hoax tag to disputed on these grounds. The hoax tag is for deliberate attempts to spread misinformation; this appears to be a good faith attempt at covering something that is already covered in a source. If the accuracy of the sources is disputed, then the disputed tag is appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Agree. Although HA is unreliable and useless to the average untrained reader, it is extensively used by respectable scholars and authors (e.g. A. Birley, Hadrian : The Restless Emperor). Therefore, any serious secondary source should not be disputed even if it is based on it. This article needs additional citations and removal of the primary information which has not been accepted by any reliable secondary source. Definitely the article is NOT a hoax.--Dipa1965 (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Rewrote/edited most parts, in order to conform with a reliable secondary source (D.S.Potter). Please consider removing the "disputed" tag. Further article expansion may be possible via D.S.Potter's biography of Callistus on Prophecy and History"--Dipa1965 (talk) 22:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- If after a few more days no other user comes forward with an argument contrary to yours feel free to remove the tag. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Rewrote/edited most parts, in order to conform with a reliable secondary source (D.S.Potter). Please consider removing the "disputed" tag. Further article expansion may be possible via D.S.Potter's biography of Callistus on Prophecy and History"--Dipa1965 (talk) 22:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Note that Harry Sidebottom, a classical scholar of some note as well as an historical novelist, in the notes to Lion of the Sun, the third volume of his series based on a fictitious rendering of Ballista, calls the HA "an elaborate fraud" and adds that "by the time the unknown author reached the mid-third century [in his coverage], he was writing free historical fiction" (p. 349). --Michael K SmithTalk 20:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)